draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-16.txt   rfc8625.txt 
Network Working Group H. Long, M. Ye
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
ZTE
A.D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A
H. Shah
Ciena
Expires: November 2019 May 5, 2019
Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-16.txt
Abstract Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Long
Request for Comments: 8625 M. Ye, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Mirsky, Ed.
ZTE
A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A
H. Shah
Ciena
August 2019
A packet switching network may contain links with variable Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information
bandwidth, e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links is
sensitive to external environment (e.g., climate). Availability is
typically used for describing these links when doing network
planning. This document introduces an optional Bandwidth
Availability TLV in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineer
(RSVP-TE) signaling. This extension can be used to set up a
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched
Path (LSP) in conjunction with the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object.
Status of this Memo Abstract
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the A packet-switching network may contain links with variable bandwidths
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. (e.g., copper and radio). The bandwidth of such links is sensitive
to the external environment (e.g., climate). Availability is
typically used to describe these links when doing network planning.
This document introduces an optional Bandwidth Availability TLV in
RSVP-TE signaling. This extension can be used to set up a GMPLS
Label Switched Path (LSP) in conjunction with the Ethernet
SENDER_TSPEC object.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six This is an Internet Standards Track document.
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2019. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8625.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Overview .................................................... 4 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 5 2. Overview ........................................................4
3.1. Bandwidth Availability TLV.............................. 5 3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling ..................................5
3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 6 3.1. Bandwidth Availability TLV .................................5
4. Security Considerations...................................... 7 3.2. Signaling Process ..........................................6
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 4. Security Considerations .........................................7
5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs ............................. 7 5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. References .................................................. 8 6. References ......................................................8
6.1. Normative References.................................... 8 6.1. Normative References .......................................8
6.2. Informative References.................................. 9 6.2. Informative References .....................................9
7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example..................... 9 Appendix A. Bandwidth Availability Example .......................11
8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 11 Acknowledgments ...................................................13
Authors' Addresses ................................................13
Conventions used in this document 1. Introduction
The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions [RFC3473]
specify the signaling message, including the bandwidth request for
setting up an LSP in a packet-switching network.
Some data communication technologies allow a seamless change of the
maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known discrete values.
The parameter availability [G.827] [F.1703] [P.530] is often used to
describe the link capacity during network planning. The availability
is based on a time scale, which is a proportion of the operating time
that the requested bandwidth is ensured. A more detailed example of
bandwidth availability can be found in Appendix A. Assigning
different bandwidth availability classes to different types of
services over links with variable discrete bandwidth provides for a
more efficient planning of link capacity. To set up an LSP across
these links, bandwidth availability information is required for the
nodes to verify bandwidth satisfaction and make a bandwidth
reservation. The bandwidth availability information should be
inherited from the bandwidth availability requirements of the
services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, voice
service usually needs 99.999% bandwidth availability, while non-real-
time services may adequately perform at 99.99% or 99.9% bandwidth
availability. Since different service types may need different
availability guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs may
be required when signaling.
If the bandwidth availability requirement is not specified in the
signaling message, the bandwidth will likely be reserved as the
highest bandwidth availability. Suppose, for example, the bandwidth
with 99.999% availability of a link is 100 Mbps, and the bandwidth
with 99.99% availability is 200 Mbps. When a video application makes
a request for 120 Mbps without a bandwidth availability requirement,
the system will consider the request as 120 Mbps with 99.999%
bandwidth availability, while the available bandwidth with 99.999%
bandwidth availability is only 100 Mbps. Therefore, the LSP path
cannot be set up. However, the video application doesn't need
99.999% bandwidth availability; 99.99% bandwidth availability is
enough. In this case, the LSP could be set up if the bandwidth
availability is also specified in the signaling message.
To fulfill an LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this
document specifies a Bandwidth Availability TLV. The Bandwidth
Availability TLV can be applicable to any kind of physical link with
variable discrete bandwidth, such as microwave or DSL. Multiple
Bandwidth Availability TLVs, together with multiple Ethernet
Bandwidth Profile TLVs, can be carried by the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC
object [RFC6003]. Since the Ethernet FLOWSPEC object has the same
format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object [RFC6003], the Bandwidth
Availability TLV can also be carried by the Ethernet FLOWSPEC object.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
The following acronyms are used in this draft: The following acronyms are used in this document:
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
LSP Label Switched Path LSP Label Switched Path
SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio
TLV Type Length Value
LSA Link State Advertisement
1. Introduction SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio
The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions [RFC3473] TLV Type-Length-Value
specify the signaling message including the bandwidth request for
setting up a Label Switched Path in a packet switching network.
Some data communication technologies allow seamless change of LSA Link State Advertisement
maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known discrete values.
The parameter availability [G.827], [F.1703], [P.530] is often used
to describe the link capacity during network planning. The
availability is based on a time scale, which is a proportion of the
operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured. A more
detailed example on the bandwidth availability can be found in
Appendix A. Assigning different bandwidth availability classes to
different types of services over such kind of links provides for a
more efficient planning of link capacity. To set up an LSP across
these links, bandwidth availability information is required for the
nodes to verify bandwidth satisfaction and make bandwidth
reservation. The bandwidth availability information should be
inherited from the bandwidth availability requirements of the
services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, voice
service usually needs "five nines" bandwidth availability, while
non-real time services may adequately perform at four or three nines
bandwidth availability. Since different service types may need
different availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability,
bandwidth> pairs may be required when signaling.
If the bandwidth availability requirement is not specified in the QAM Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
signaling message, the bandwidth will likely be reserved as the
highest bandwidth availability. Suppose, for example, the bandwidth
with 99.999% availability of a link is 100 Mbps; the bandwidth with
99.99% availability is 200 Mbps. When a video application makes a
request for 120 Mbps without bandwidth availability requirement, the
system will consider the request as 120 Mbps with 99.999% bandwidth
availability, while the available bandwidth with 99.999% bandwidth
availability is only 100 Mbps, therefore the LSP path cannot be set
up. But, in fact, the video application doesn't need 99.999%
bandwidth availability; 99.99% bandwidth availability is enough. In
this case, the LSP could be set up if bandwidth availability is also
specified in the signaling message.
To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document QPSK Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
specifies a Bandwidth Availability TLV. The Bandwidth Availability
TLV can be applicable to any kind of physical links with variable
discrete bandwidth, such as microwave or DSL. Multiple Bandwidth
Availability TLVs together with multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles
can be carried by the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object [RFC6003]. Since
the Ethernet FLOWSPEC object has the same format as the Ethernet
SENDER_TSPEC object [RFC6003], the Bandwidth Availability TLV can
also be carried by the Ethernet FLOWSPEC object.
2. Overview 2. Overview
A tunnel in a packet switching network may span one or more links in A tunnel in a packet-switching network may span one or more links in
a network. To setup a Label Switched Path (LSP), a node may collect a network. To set up an LSP, a node may collect link information
link information which is advertised in a routing message, e.g., that is advertised in a routing message (e.g., an OSPF TE LSA
OSPF TE LSA message, by network nodes to obtain network topology message) by network nodes to obtain network topology information, and
information, and then calculate an LSP route based on the network it can then calculate an LSP route based on the network topology.
topology. The calculated LSP route is signaled using a PATH/RESV The calculated LSP route is signaled using a PATH/RESV message to set
message for setting up the LSP. up the LSP.
In case that there is (are) link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth If a network contains one or more links with variable discrete
in a network, a <bandwidth, availability> requirement list should be bandwidths, a <bandwidth, availability> requirement list should be
specified for an LSP at setup. Each <bandwidth, availability> pair specified for an LSP at setup. Each <bandwidth, availability> pair
in the list means the listed bandwidth with specified availability in the list means the listed bandwidth with specified availability is
is required. The list could be derived from the results of service required. The list can be derived from the results of service
planning for the LSP. planning for the LSP.
A node which has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached A node that has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached
should contain a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its should contain a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its
OSPF TE LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link OSPF TE LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link
nominal bandwidth and its availability level. This information can nominal bandwidth and its availability level. This information can
then be used for path calculation by the node(s). The routing then be used for path calculation by the node(s). The routing
extension for availability can be found in [RFC8330]. extension for availability can be found in [RFC8330].
When a node initiates a PATH/RESV signaling to set up an LSP, the When a node initiates a PATH/RESV signaling to set up an LSP, the
PATH message should carry the <bandwidth, availability> requirement PATH message should carry the <bandwidth, availability> requirement
list as a bandwidth request. Intermediate node(s) will allocate the list as a bandwidth request. Intermediate node(s) will allocate the
bandwidth resource for each availability requirement from the bandwidth resources for each availability requirement from the
remaining bandwidth with corresponding availability. An error remaining bandwidth with the corresponding availability. An error
message may be returned if any <bandwidth, availability> request message may be returned if any <bandwidth, availability> request
cannot be satisfied. cannot be satisfied.
3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling 3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling
3.1. Bandwidth Availability TLV 3.1. Bandwidth Availability TLV
A Bandwidth Availability TLV is defined as a TLV of the Ethernet A Bandwidth Availability TLV is defined as a TLV of the Ethernet
SENDER_TSPEC object [RFC6003] in this document. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object [RFC6003] in this document. The Ethernet
SENDER_TSPEC object MAY include more than one Bandwidth Availability SENDER_TSPEC object MAY include more than one Bandwidth Availability
TLV. The Bandwidth Availability TLV has the following format: TLV. The Bandwidth Availability TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index | Reserved | | Index | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Availability | | Availability |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Bandwidth Availability TLV Figure 1: Bandwidth Availability TLV
Type (2 octets): 0x04(suggested; TBD by IANA)
Length (2 octets): 0x0C. Indicates the length in bytes of the Type (2 octets): 4
whole TLV including the Type and Length fields, in this case 12
bytes.
Index (1 octet): Length (2 octets): 0x0C. Indicates the length in bytes of the whole
TLV, including the Type and Length fields. In this case, the length
is 12 bytes.
When the Bandwidth Availability TLV is included, the Ethernet Index (1 octet): When the Bandwidth Availability TLV is included, the
Bandwidth Profile TLV MUST also be included. If there are multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV MUST also be included. If there are
bandwidth requirements present (in multiple Ethernet Bandwidth multiple bandwidth requirements present (in multiple Ethernet
Profile TLVs) and they have different availability requirements, Bandwidth Profile TLVs) and they have different availability
multiple Bandwidth Availability TLVs MUST be carried. In such a requirements, multiple Bandwidth Availability TLVs MUST be carried.
case, the Bandwidth Availability TLV has a one to one In such a case, the Bandwidth Availability TLV has a one-to-one
correspondence with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV by having correspondence with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV as both have
the same value of Index field. If all the bandwidth requirements the same value in the Index field. If all the bandwidth requirements
in the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile have the same Availability in the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV have the same availability
requirement, one Bandwidth Availability TLV SHOULD be carried. In requirement, one Bandwidth Availability TLV SHOULD be carried. In
this case, the Index field is set to 0. this case, the Index field is set to 0.
Reserved (3 octets): These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent Reserved (3 octets): These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent and
and MUST be ignored when received. MUST be ignored when received.
Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating-point number in binary Availability (4 octets): A 32-bit floating-point number in binary
interchange format [IEEE754] describes the decimal value of the interchange format [IEEE754] describes the decimal value of the
availability requirement for this bandwidth request. The value availability requirement for this bandwidth request. The value MUST
MUST be less than 1 and is usually expressed in the value of be less than 1 and is usually expressed as one of the following
0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999. The IEEE floating-point number is used values: 0.99, 0.999, 0.9999, or 0.99999. The IEEE floating-point
here to align with [RFC8330]. However when representing values number is used here to align with [RFC8330]. When representing
higher than 0.999999, the floating-point number starts to values higher than 0.999999, the floating-point number starts to
introduce errors in relation to intended precision. However in introduce errors to intended precision. However, in reality, 0.99999
reality, 0.99999 is normally considered as the highest is normally considered the highest availability value (which results
availability value (5 minutes outage in a year) in telecom in 5 minutes of outage in a year) in a telecom network. Therefore,
network, therefore the use of floating-point number in the use of a floating-point number for availability is acceptable.
availability is acceptable.
3.2. Signaling Process 3.2. Signaling Process
The source node initiates a PATH message which may carry a number of The source node initiates a PATH message, which may carry a number of
bandwidth requests, including one or more Ethernet Bandwidth Profile bandwidth requests, including one or more Ethernet Bandwidth Profile
TLVs and one or more Bandwidth Availability TLVs. Each Ethernet TLVs and one or more Bandwidth Availability TLVs. Each Ethernet
Bandwidth Profile TLV corresponds to an availability parameter in Bandwidth Profile TLV corresponds to an availability parameter in the
the associated Bandwidth Availability TLV. associated Bandwidth Availability TLV.
The intermediate and destination nodes check whether they can When the intermediate and destination nodes receive the PATH message,
satisfy the bandwidth requirements by comparing each bandwidth the nodes compare the requested bandwidth under each availability
request inside the SENDER_TSPEC objects with the remaining link sub- level in the SENDER_TSPEC objects, with the remaining link bandwidth
bandwidth resource with respective availability guarantee on the resources under a corresponding availability level on a local link,
local link when the PATH message is received. to check if they can meet the bandwidth requirements.
o When all <bandwidth, availability> requirement requests can o When all <bandwidth, availability> requirement requests can be
be satisfied (the requested bandwidth under each availability satisfied (that is, the requested bandwidth under each
parameter is smaller than or equal to the remaining bandwidth availability parameter is smaller than or equal to the remaining
under the corresponding availability parameter on its local bandwidth under the corresponding availability parameter on its
link), the node SHOULD reserve the bandwidth resource from each local link), the node SHOULD reserve the bandwidth resources from
remaining sub-bandwidth portion on its local link to set up each remaining sub-bandwidth portion on its local link to set up
this LSP. Optionally, a higher availability bandwidth can be this LSP. Optionally, a higher availability bandwidth can be
allocated to a lower availability request when the lower allocated to a lower availability request when the lower
availability bandwidth cannot satisfy the request. availability bandwidth cannot satisfy the request.
o When at least one <bandwidth, availability> requirement o When at least one <bandwidth, availability> requirement request
request cannot be satisfied, the node SHOULD generate PathErr cannot be satisfied, the node SHOULD generate a PathErr message
message with the error code "Admission Control Error" and the with the error code "Admission Control Error" and the error value
error value "Requested Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]). "Requested Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]).
When two LSPs request bandwidth with the same availability When two LSPs request bandwidth with the same availability
requirement, contention MUST be resolved by comparing the node IDs, requirement, the contention MUST be resolved by comparing the node
with the LSP with the higher node ID being assigned the reservation. IDs, where the LSP with the higher node ID is assigned the
This is consistent with general contention resolution mechanism reservation. This is consistent with the general contention
provided in section 4.2 of [RFC3471]. resolution mechanism provided in Section 4.2 of [RFC3471].
When a node does not support the Bandwidth Availability TLV, the When a node does not support the Bandwidth Availability TLV, the node
node should send a PathErr message with error code "Unknown should send a PathErr message with error code "Unknown Attributes
Attributes TLV", as specified in [RFC5420]. An LSP could also be set TLV", as specified in [RFC5420]. An LSP could also be set up in this
up in this case if there's enough bandwidth (the availability level case if there's enough bandwidth (note that the availability level of
of the reserved bandwidth is unknown). When a node receives the reserved bandwidth is unknown). When a node receives Bandwidth
Bandwidth Availability TLVs with a mix of zero index and non-zero Availability TLVs with a mix of zero and non-zero indexes, the
index, the message MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be propagated. When message MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be propagated. When a node
a node receives Bandwidth Availability TLVs (non-zero index) with no receives Bandwidth Availability TLVs (non-zero index) with no
matching index value among the bandwidth-TLVs, the message MUST be matching index value among the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs, the
ignored and MUST NOT be propagated. When a node receives several message MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be propagated. When a node
<bandwidth, availability> pairs, but there are extra bandwidth-TLVs receives several <bandwidth, availability> pairs, but there are extra
without matching the index of any Availability-TLV, the extra Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs that do not match the index of any
bandwidth-TLVs MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be propagated. Bandwidth Availability TLV, the extra Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs
MUST be ignored and MUST NOT be propagated.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document defines a Bandwidth Availability TLV in RSVP-TE This document defines a Bandwidth Availability TLV in RSVP-TE
signaling used in GMPLS networks. [RFC3945] notes that signaling used in GMPLS networks. [RFC3945] notes that
authentication in GMPLS systems may use the authentication authentication in GMPLS systems may use the authentication mechanisms
mechanisms of the component protocols. [RFC5920] provides an of the component protocols. [RFC5920] provides an overview of
overview of security vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for security vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS
the GMPLS control plane. Especially section 7.1.2 of [RFC5920] control plane. In particular, Section 7.1.2 of [RFC5920] discusses
discusses the control-plane protection with RSVP-TE by using general the control-plane protection with RSVP-TE by using general RSVP
RSVP security tools, limiting the impact of an attack on control- security tools, limiting the impact of an attack on control-plane
plane resources, and authentication for RSVP messages. Moreover, the resources, and using authentication for RSVP messages. Moreover, the
GMPLS network is often considered to be a closed network such that GMPLS network is often considered to be a closed network such that
insertion, modification, or inspection of packets by an outside insertion, modification, or inspection of packets by an outside party
party is not possible. is not possible.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE used by
GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries
as set out in the following sections.
5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs
IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters".
IANA has created a sub-registry called "Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs /
Ethernet Flowspec TLVs" to contain the TLV type values for TLVs
carried in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. The sub-registry needs
to be updated to include the Bandwidth Availability TLV which is
defined as follow. This document proposes a suggested value for the
Availability sub-TLV; it is requested that the suggested value be
granted by IANA.
Type Description Reference 5. IANA Considerations
----- -------------------- --------- IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called the "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters"
registry. This registry includes the "Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs/
Ethernet Flowspec TLVs" subregistry that contains the TLV type values
for TLVs carried in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. This
subregistry has been updated to include the Bandwidth Availability
TLV:
0x04 Bandwidth Availability [This ID] Type Description Reference
---- ---------------------- ---------
4 Bandwidth Availability RFC 8625
(Suggested; TBD by IANA) 6. References
The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as 6.1. Normative References
defined in [RFC8126].
6. References [IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE 754, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935.
6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
S.Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
January 2003. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur JP., and Ayyangar [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
A., "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D. "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC 6003, [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters",
October 2010. RFC 6003, DOI 10.17487/RFC6003, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6003>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017. 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",IEEE
754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935, 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/754-
2008.html>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC8126] Cotton,M. and Leiba,B., and Narten T., "Guidelines for 6.2. Informative References
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126,
June 2017.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [EN-302-217]
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. ETSI, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and
requirements for point-to-point equipment and antennas;
Part 1: Overview and system-independent common
characteristics", ETSI EN 302 217-1, Version 3.1.1, May
2017.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [F.1703] ITU-R, "Availability objectives for real digital fixed
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. wireless links used in 27 500 km hypothetical reference
paths and connections", ITU-R Recommendation F.1703-0,
January 2005, <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-F.1703/en>.
[G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters [G.827] ITU-T, "Availability performance parameters and objectives
and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit- for end-to-end international constant bit-rate digital
rate digital paths", September 2003. paths", ITU-T Recommendation G.827, September 2003,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.827/en>.
[F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real [P.530] ITU-R, "Propagation data and prediction methods required
digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km for the design of terrestrial line-of-sight systems",
hypothetical reference paths and connections", January ITU-R Recommendation P.530-17, December 2017,
2005. <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.530/en>.
[P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of- Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
sight systems", February 2012 DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[EN 302 217] ETSI standard, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
and requirements for point-to-point equipment and Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
antennas", April 2009 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC8330] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., [RFC8330] Long, H., Ye, M., Mirsky, G., D'Alessandro, A., and H.
"OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link Availability Shah, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link
Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth", Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete
RFC8330, February 2018 Bandwidth", RFC 8330, DOI 10.17487/RFC8330, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8330>.
7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example Appendix A. Bandwidth Availability Example
In a mobile backhaul network, microwave links are very popular for In mobile backhaul networks, microwave links are very popular for
providing connections of last hops. In case of heavy rain providing connections of last hops. To maintain link connectivity in
conditions, to maintain the link connectivity, the microwave link heavy rain conditions, the microwave link may lower the modulation
may lower the modulation level since moving to a lower modulation level since moving to a lower modulation level provides for a lower
level provides for a lower Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) requirement. SNR requirement. This is called "adaptive modulation" technology
This is called adaptive modulation technology [EN 302 217]. However, [EN-302-217]. However, a lower modulation level also means a lower
a lower modulation level also means lower link bandwidth. When link link bandwidth. When a link bandwidth is reduced because of
bandwidth is reduced because of modulation down-shifting, high- modulation downshifting, high-priority traffic can be maintained,
priority traffic can be maintained, while lower-priority traffic is while lower-priority traffic is dropped. Similarly, copper links may
dropped. Similarly, copper links may change their link bandwidth due change their link bandwidth due to external interference.
to external interference.
Presuming that a link has three discrete bandwidth levels: Presume that a link has three discrete bandwidth levels:
The link bandwidth under modulation level 1, e.g., QPSK, is 100 o The link bandwidth under modulation level 1 (e.g., QPSK) is 100
Mbps; Mbps.
The link bandwidth under modulation level 2, e.g., 16QAM, is 200 o The link bandwidth under modulation level 2 (e.g., 16QAM) is 200
Mbps; Mbps.
The link bandwidth under modulation level 3, e.g., 256QAM, is 400 o The link bandwidth under modulation level 3 (e.g., 256QAM) is 400
Mbps. Mbps.
On a sunny day, the modulation level 3 can be used to achieve 400 On a sunny day, modulation level 3 can be used to achieve a 400 Mbps
Mbps link bandwidth. link bandwidth.
A light rain with X mm/h rate triggers the system to change the Light rain with a X mm/h rate triggers the system to change the
modulation level from level 3 to level 2, with bandwidth changing modulation level from level 3 to level 2, with the bandwidth changing
from 400 Mbps to 200 Mbps. The probability of X mm/h rain in the from 400 Mbps to 200 Mbps. The probability of X mm/h rain in the
local area is 52 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 200 Mbps local area is 52 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 200 Mbps
bandwidth has 99.99% availability. bandwidth has 99.99% availability.
A heavy rain with Y(Y>X) mm/h rate triggers the system to change the Heavy rain with a Y(Y>X) mm/h rate triggers the system to change the
modulation level from level 2 to level 1, with bandwidth changing modulation level from level 2 to level 1, with the bandwidth changing
from 200 Mbps to 100 Mbps. The probability of Y mm/h rain in the from 200 Mbps to 100 Mbps. The probability of Y mm/h rain in the
local area is 26 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 100 Mbps local area is 26 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 100 Mbps
bandwidth has 99.995% availability. bandwidth has 99.995% availability.
For the 100M bandwidth of the modulation level 1, only the extreme For the 100 Mbps bandwidth of modulation level 1, only extreme
weather condition can cause the whole system to be unavailable, weather conditions can cause the whole system to be unavailable,
which only happens for 5 minutes in a year. So the 100 Mbps which only happens for 5 minutes in a year. So the 100 Mbps
bandwidth of the modulation level 1 owns the availability of bandwidth of the modulation level 1 owns the availability of 99.999%.
99.999%.
There are discrete buckets per availability level. Under the worst
weather conditions, there's only 100 Mbps capacity and that's
99.999% available. It's treated as effectively "always available"
since there's no way to do any better. If the weather is bad but not
the worst weather, modulation level 2 can be used, which gets an
additional 100 Mbps bandwidth (i.e., 200 Mbps total), so there are
100 Mbps in the 99.999% bucket and 100 Mbps in the 99.995% bucket.
In clear weather, modulate level 3 can be used to get 400 Mbps
total, but that's only 200 Mbps more than at modulation level 2, so
99.99% bucket has that "extra" 200 Mbps, and the other two buckets
still have their 100 Mbps each.
Therefore, the maximum bandwidth is 400 Mbps. According to the There are discrete buckets per availability level. Under the worst
weather condition, the sub-bandwidth and its availability are shown weather conditions, there's only 100 Mbps capacity, which is 99.999%
as follows: available. It's treated effectively as "always available" since
better availability is not possible. If the weather is bad but not
the worst possible conditions, modulation level 2 can be used, which
gets an additional 100 Mbps bandwidth (i.e., 200 Mbps total).
Therefore, 100 Mbps is in the 99.999% bucket, and 100 Mbps is in the
99.995% bucket. In clear weather, modulation level 3 can be used to
get 400 Mbps total, but that's only 200 Mbps more than at modulation
level 2, so the 99.99% bucket has that "extra" 200 Mbps, and the
other two buckets still have 100 Mbps each.
Sub-bandwidth (Mbps) Availability Therefore, the maximum bandwidth is 400 Mbps. The sub-bandwidth and
its availability according to the weather conditions are shown as
follows:
------------------ ------------ Sub-bandwidth (Mbps) Availability
------------------ ------------
200 99.99% 200 99.99%
100 99.995% 100 99.995%
100 99.999% 100 99.999%
8. Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Khuzema Pithewan, The authors would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Khuzema Pithewan,
Lou Berger, Yuji Tochio, Dieter Beller, and Autumn Liu for their Lou Berger, Yuji Tochio, Dieter Beller, and Autumn Liu for their
comments and contributions on the document. comments on and contributions to the document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Hao Long Hao Long
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
Chengdu 611731, P.R.China Chengdu 611731
China
Phone: +86-18615778750 Phone: +86-18615778750
Email: longhao@huawei.com Email: longhao@huawei.com
Min Ye (editor) Min Ye (editor)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
Chengdu 611731, P.R.China Chengdu 611731
China
Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com
Greg Mirsky (editor) Greg Mirsky (editor)
ZTE ZTE
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Alessandro D'Alessandro Alessandro D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A Telecom Italia S.p.A
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
Himanshu Shah Himanshu Shah
Ciena Corp. Ciena Corp.
3939 North First Street 3939 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US United States of America
Email: hshah@ciena.com Email: hshah@ciena.com
 End of changes. 92 change blocks. 
359 lines changed or deleted 351 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/